Clemmensen's review of "300" was spot on as usual. The part about the different types of fake abs on the men in the film has had me laughing for a whole day. One question: of all the occupations that he could have reduced to the level of temp track music editor, why did he choose animal talkers and professional organizers? Not that I have any liking for either, I'm only curious why those two.

> of all the occupations that he could have reduced to the level of temp track
> music editor, why did he choose animal talkers and professional organizers?

I don't know about the animal talkers, but anyone who follows Clemmensen and this site really closely will know that he included "professional organizers who live out of suitcases and charge $90 per hour" for one very precise reason. It just so happens that exactly such a person threatened to whip a lawyer on Clemmensen and Filmtracks earlier this year.

> I don't know about the animal talkers, but anyone who follows Clemmensen
> and this site really closely will know that he included "professional
> organizers who live out of suitcases and charge $90 per hour" for one
> very precise reason. It just so happens that exactly such a person
> threatened to whip a lawyer on Clemmensen and Filmtracks earlier this year.

A dumb and sorry chapter in Filmtracks history. I'd rather date my sister than date a woman who thinks she's helping society by organizing rich peoples' homes.

> I don't know about the animal talkers, but anyone who follows Clemmensen
> and this site really closely will know that he included "professional
> organizers who live out of suitcases and charge $90 per hour" for one
> very precise reason. It just so happens that exactly such a person
> threatened to whip a lawyer on Clemmensen and Filmtracks earlier this
> year.

Because she is clueless. I remember reading the thread in question. It was in the Star Wars Episode 3 section. There was no libel in that thread at all. There was a list of things you should not post about at Filmtracks and she was one of them. Teenage girls got into a debate about it and that was mostly it. Some idiot had posted something rude about her but Christian had already deleted it long ago.

For someone to have a libel case against Filmtracks because their name appears on the website, they would have to prove that the name was put there intentionally to mislead people with false information about them. You can't just sue a website for libel because you don't like the fact that someone posted your name on it with no purposeful positive or negative context. Christian can damn well post a list of the words and names not allowed at the site and if your name is on it, too bad. He doesn't have to give a reason and you can't sue him for putting your name in a public restriction list.

Christian should stand up to people like this woman and not give in under empty legal threats.

> Christian should stand up to people like this woman and not give in under empty legal threats.

I think you're missing the point. Clemmensen made it clear when he briefly discussed this matter on the Scoreboard that this woman is clearly a long-time nuisance to him and he doesn't want to deal with her anymore than he is forced to. I'd guess that he complied with the terms of her threat simply to make her go away. Nobody disagrees with you about the legality issues. I actually posted in that thread in question and there was nothing amounting to libel anywhere in the whole conversation. Most of the thread wasn't even about her. The only person really attacked was Clemmensen himself (as usual).

If you want to feel happy about this situation though, notice that Clemmensen takes subtle digs at people he doesn't like in his reviews (well beyond the George Bush jokes). What he wrote in the "300" review was unmistakably about the woman we're talking about. He also made a point of calling the character of Ariel a "dimwit" in his "Little Mermaid" review. Both lines are perfectly legal of course, because they don't mention his bothersome former partner by name and only a small handful of older readers will know the connection.

> I think you're missing the point. Clemmensen made it clear when he briefly
> discussed this matter on the Scoreboard that this woman is clearly a
> long-time nuisance to him and he doesn't want to deal with her anymore
> than he is forced to. I'd guess that he complied with the terms of her
> threat simply to make her go away. Nobody disagrees with you about the
> legality issues. I actually posted in that thread in question and there
> was nothing amounting to libel anywhere in the whole conversation. Most of
> the thread wasn't even about her. The only person really attacked was
> Clemmensen himself (as usual).

I still don't get it. Christian fights legal challenges from studios and composer agencies but gives in to some angry woman who simply can't stand not having total control over her name usage? I mean, have you googled her name and read some of her pretentious and self-absorbed advice for organizing your life in her blog? She's one of those wannabe indpendent professional women who is all bark and no brain. (THAT'S MY OPINION. YOU CAN'T SUE ME EITHER) Christian should have published her threat like all the others. That's another thing too -- doesn't she realize that if she did attack Filmtracks legally, Christian would publicize the case with all the power of Filmtracks' reach on the internet? Like the Moulin Rouge review. It would do her name 10 times more harm than good.

Mike, I'm not saying that the woman is a genius. In fact I'm not advocating for her at all. I'm only speculating that Clemmensen is struggling to keep Filmtracks going in this very tough economy and he doesn't have time to deal with some aloof former lover who obviously looks upon him with a lot of suspicion because she knows that he thoroughly dislikes her. The legal aspect doesn't really matter when you have two people who clearly have experienced a total communication breakdown.

> Mike, I'm not saying that the woman is a genius. In fact I'm not
> advocating for her at all. I'm only speculating that Clemmensen is
> struggling to keep Filmtracks going in this very tough economy and he
> doesn't have time to deal with some aloof former lover who obviously looks
> upon him with a lot of suspicion because she knows that he thoroughly
> dislikes her. The legal aspect doesn't really matter when you have two
> people who clearly have experienced a total communication breakdown.

No -- I don't buy that at all. The law is all that matters, and the law says that libel only applies when someone intentionally posts false or misleading information about you in order to defame you. That never happened to this woman at this site. People were talking about her, but it wasn't defamatory or factually wrong. Christian himself won't even mention her by name in public forums. She would have no legal case against him if I go ahead and post her name. Ariel Bowlby There, I said it. Ariel Bowlby. Oops, I did it again! Was that illegal? Of course not. Will I be struck by lightning and judged by God for using her name? Of course not. Does she have a right to get a lawyer and threaten Filmtracks with a suit because I mentioned her name in a neutral and factual context? Yeah, but she would lose and could be countersued for harassment and court costs. Everyone should stop being afraid of people who don't know what they are talking about.

I repeat again, nobody will disagree with you on the legal aspect. You're only making more trouble for Clemmensen by using the woman's name, though. Have some sympathy for the man. He's trying to run this huge site while going blind, raising a family, and holding on to his day job. You're baiting this clearly ungrounded woman into another confrontation with him that he doesn't have time for. If you have any respect for Clemmensen and all the problems that he has to deal with at this site on a daily basis, you'll go back and edit your post to remove that woman's name. Please do that.

He writes about music that is not mainstream, his taste in women is obviously questionable, and he painted his silly American car like this: http://www.filmtracks.com/home/media/2006/impala/1.jpgGuys who live outside of normal tastes are asking for all the trouble they can get. Let him be sued.

His review of The Fountain sucked too. I can't let this comment end without reminding everyone of that.

> I repeat again, nobody will disagree with you on the legal aspect. You're
> only making more trouble for Clemmensen by using the woman's name, though.
> Have some sympathy for the man. He's trying to run this huge site while
> going blind, raising a family, and holding on to his day job. You're
> baiting this clearly ungrounded woman into another confrontation with him
> that he doesn't have time for. If you have any respect for Clemmensen and
> all the problems that he has to deal with at this site on a daily basis,
> you'll go back and edit your post to remove that woman's name. Please do
> that.

> He writes about music that is not mainstream, his taste in women is
> obviously questionable, and he painted his silly American car like this:
> http://www.filmtracks.com/home/media/2006/impala/1.jpg Guys who live
> outside of normal tastes are asking for all the trouble they can get. Let
> him be sued.

The only thing that differentiates this Ariel Bowlby thread from previous times at Filmtracks is that someone decided to insult Clemmensen's car. Is there ever any point to any of this? It's not like she actually sued this site.

> The only thing that differentiates this Ariel Bowlby thread from previous
> times at Filmtracks is that someone decided to insult Clemmensen's car. Is
> there ever any point to any of this? It's not like she actually sued this
> site.

The point is that Clemmensen tends to put hidden messages in his reviews and only a tiny number of people will "get" them. I want to see more reviews like Clash of the Titans, where he comes out and does an obvious satirical comedy routine. If he can do that while also taking veiled shots at flakey old lovers that have threatened this site, then I'd be impressed.

I knew Ariel once upon a time and she wouldn't sue anybody unless somebody was commiting a serious crime against her. She's a great person and not the type to harass anybody with lawyers. Whatever happened here must have been really terrible and I'm sorry to see that the owners of this site use it to attack innocent and wonderful people. ((

> No -- I don't buy that at all. The law is all that matters, and the law
> says that libel only applies when someone intentionally posts false or
> misleading information about you in order to defame you. That never
> happened to this woman at this site. People were talking about her, but it
> wasn't defamatory or factually wrong. Christian himself won't even mention
> her by name in public forums. She would have no legal case against him if
> I go ahead and post her name. Ariel Bowlby There, I said it. Ariel
> Bowlby. Oops, I did it again! Was that illegal? Of course not. Will I be
> struck by lightning and judged by God for using her name? Of course not.
> Does she have a right to get a lawyer and threaten Filmtracks with a suit
> because I mentioned her name in a neutral and factual context? Yeah, but
> she would lose and could be countersued for harassment and court costs.
> Everyone should stop being afraid of people who don't know what they are
> talking about.

> I knew Ariel once upon a time and she wouldn't sue anybody unless somebody
> was commiting a serious crime against her. She's a great person and not
> the type to harass anybody with lawyers. Whatever happened here must have
> been really terrible and I'm sorry to see that the owners of this site use
> it to attack innocent and wonderful people. ((

> I knew Ariel once upon a time and she wouldn't sue anybody unless somebody
> was commiting a serious crime against her. She's a great person and not
> the type to harass anybody with lawyers. Whatever happened here must have
> been really terrible and I'm sorry to see that the owners of this site use
> it to attack innocent and wonderful people. ((

Attack innocent and wonderful people? Are you serious? Clemmensen is so harmless that he doesn't even attack the wicked and awful people. Off-hand sarcastic comments, yes. Cryptic references in his reviews. A funny 404 page. But, attacks against people in the real world, no. If he did, everyone would hear his legendary Ford Thaxton phone recordings, which he won't even make public. Or he would have encouraged Filmtracks' army of geeks to blast your friend's reputation online, which he did the opposite -he asked everyone to leave her alone at all costs.

Get your facts straight before you come to this site making assumptions about Filmtracks and its owner. From what I know about the problem with Bowlby, it's outsiders like you that keep coming to Filmtracks and making trouble for Clem. Someday, one of these morons -or a oversensitive composer- will actually go ahead and sue him for some ridiculous reason and Filmtracks will have to declare bankruptcy on attorney's fees before a judge could throw out the suit. I'm willing to bet on it.

I hope this Bowlby woman sues the hell out of Clemmensen and puts his overrated wife and children out on the streets. The sooner this eye-burning web site goes out of business, the sooner everyone will be spared Clemmensen's [bleep!]ing idiotic reviews! I'm tired of Filmtracks being the center of the online soundtrack world. It's just a fraudulent front for Clemmensen's support of the socialist Obama agenda anyway. What a joke.

Some things at Filmtracks never change, like the crazy lunatics and religious freaks attacking Christian for his liberal politics and one-liners in his reviews. The funny stories about Christian's unlucky dating life are gone though, and there is something sad about that. He's been married and with kids for so long that I don't even remember any of those hilarious tales anymore. I just remember that they were sitcom worthy stories and finding this Ariel Bowlby thread out of the blue reminds me of that. It's like seeing a weird time warp of 1990's Filmtracks in the 2010's. Damn - we're getting old.

I for one hope that all of this has blown over and a lawsuit will never happen. So much changes in life, but Filmtracks is one of the only remaining things I can remember from my first days on the world wide web in 1996. It would be a shame to see its past kill off its future.